RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Vs. KRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent, owner of the disputed premises filed eviction petition against second respondent herein and appellant alleging that premises had been let out to second respondent who had unlawfully sublet the same to the appellant and that provided a ground for eviction under S.11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The eviction petition was resisted by contending that even though second respondent was the original tenant, by later arrangement appellant got into possession with the consent of the landlord. The Rent Controller accepted this plea and dismissed the eviction petition. But mat was reversed by the appellate court and the reversal confirmed by the revisional court, namely, District Court under S.20 of the Act. The alleged sub tenant challenged the proceedings before this court, namely under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition having been dismissed by the learned single judge though conditionally grunting six months time to vacate, this appeal is filed.

(2.) We asked learned counsel for the appellant to explain how an appeal is maintainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that original petition was filed before the learned single judge not only under Art.227 but also under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, that when shelter is sought under both the Articles since Art.226 has wider import than Art.227 it must be taken that relief was actually claimed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in which case the impugned judgment would be appealable.